About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
, to meet with the people you see on your screen here. you have senator john mccain, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte. she went to address concerns they have over statements the ambassador made over the u.s. mission in benghazi on september 11th that left ambassador chris stevens and three other americans dead. i want you to listen to what senator graham, republican south carolina, here, said immediately after the meeting ended. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think does not do justice to the reality at the time, and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. but here's the key. in real time, it was a statement disconnected from reality. >> and now here is senator ayotte. >> i want to say that i'm more troubled today, knowing -- having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice, because it's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that wa
of her as a spokesman for the administration. one suspects that senators graham and mccain and ayotte have other reasons for opposing her and are using this as an excuse but it's fairly flimsy because while there are legitimate questions to be asked about what happened in benghazi -- >> but dana, hang on a second. if you have a problem with susan rice, let her be nominated, challenge her, and go through due process. why do this on the basis of intelligence that she had received that's consistent with the information that she was given by the cia? >> not only is it illogical, it is counterproductive because they're putting the president in a position of saying he's going to nominate her if he wasn't before because now he's not going to look like he's caving in or backing down. so they're going to achieve the exact opposite of what they're purporting to want. >> absolutely astonishing. goldie, conservatives, as we know, are attacking ambassador rice for admitting that the initial intelligence was wrong in one respect, that there was no process in benghazi, but she's admitted that the in
graham. you are on the record saying you will not support her if she is nominated for secretary of state. but not just because of libya. what is the problem. >> let me clarify that. my first thought is what if susan rice was thrown under the bus and they all knew she didn't have the information from the cia. then i thought you would have to feel sorry for her. since yesterday talking to some of those to whom she talked i'm convinced in my mind that she is part of the coverup, she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. but your point is very good. i could not support her in the secretary of state if she is nominated. bill: give me a reason why. >> she is on the wrong side of the membership of the u.n. palestinian authority. she is on the opposite side of where i am. she has kept on funding you necessary cowhich is in violation of instructions given to her through law. she is on the opposite side of every issue that i am. for that reason i would have opposed her anyway. bill: it appears to me and many others when we listen to folks like yourself talk that this issue i
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)